UNFCCC ARTICLE 6: This contact group was
chaired by Markus Nauser (Switzerland), who encouraged Parties to
provide guidance to the Secretariat for elaboration of the clearing
house on Article 6 activities. The Secretariat presented the UNFCCC
information network Internet site containing a small-scale model of the
clearing house (http://test.unfccc.int/). Parties then discussed the
target audience of the clearing house, focus areas for the first phase
of work, and nodes for supplying and maintaining the information on the
site. The G-77/CHINA stressed the need to assist Parties who do not have
national sites. The EU and NAMIBIA suggested that the first phase of
work should target Parties. Several Parties supported regional and
sub-regional nodes for supplying and maintaining information. The US
encouraged the involvement of existing institutions to fulfill these
roles.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL MEETINGS:
This contact group was chaired by Karsten Sach (Germany). Participants
agreed that as views on the inclusion of the second review of adequacy
of commitments under UNFCCC Article 4.2 (a) and (b) were well known,
Chair Sach would ask the Secretariat to take note of the SBI Plenary
discussion on Thursday, 17 June, including on the footnote suggested by
the G-77/China. Regarding arrangements for COP-10, delegates discussed
the possible timing, structure and themes of the high-level segment.ARGENTINA and SWITZERLAND said the themes should appeal to ministers
and delegates. Parties discussed the proposed theme on energy and
climate change, with SAUDI ARABIA cautioning against focusing on any
single energy sector.

On
organization of the intergovernmental process, delegates discussed the
timing of a suggested workshop, with several Parties stressing the
importance of such a workshop. On effective participation in the UNFCCC
process, the EU and JAPAN presented views on options listed by the
Secretariat to promote participation by NGOs and indigenous peoples.
Chair Sach said the issue of observer status to the CDM EB was regulated
by an existing COP decision (decision 21/CP.8 on the CDM EB).

CAPACITY BUILDING: This contact group was
chaired by Dechen Tsering (Bhutan), who listed possible elements for
draft conclusions, which will be made available to participants before
the next contact group meeting. She invited participants to suggest
elements for a draft COP decision. Discussions centered on, inter
alia: synergies with other Rio conventions; elements of the
technical paper on the range and effectiveness of capacity building,
including indicators for capacity-building projects; and the relevance
of National Capacity Self Assessments in assessing capacity needs for
climate change.

IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISION 5/CP.7: This
contact group was co-chaired by Paul Watkinson (France) and Mohamed
Mahmoud Ould El Ghaouth (Mauritania). Co-Chair Watkinson said the
negotiation text forwarded from SBI-19 would form the basis of
discussions. KENYA, for the G-77/China, suggested re-organizing the
document under sub-headings, and circulated text with proposed changes
and additions. Several Parties, including the EU and US, supported the
suggestion for re-organizing the text, with the US also circulating a
proposal.

Delegates
worked to remove brackets, and presented changes and additions on,
inter alia: a synthesis document on submissions on activities to
meet the specific needs and circumstances of developing country Parties
arising from the adverse effects of climate change and response
measures; a call for submissions of views on insurance and risk
measures; regional workshops; and mobilization of technical and
financial resources. Co-Chair Watkinson invited delegates to review and
consult on the new proposals before the next contact group meeting.

SBSTA CONTACT GROUPS

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: The contact group
considered draft conclusions. On text regarding the results of the
TT:CLEAR survey, the EU, with JAPAN and CANADA, opposed referring to
specific results and suggested noting the survey generally instead.
GHANA, for the G-77/China, supported by UGANDA, favored retaining the
original language reflecting that the Internet site is lightly used by
non-Annex I Parties. CHINA, supported by G-77/CHINA, suggested referring
to figures on the site’s usage in the draft conclusions. The US,
supported by the EU and CANADA, and opposed by the G-77/CHINA, proposed
noting the survey and its useful feedback and recommendations, including
the concern that the site is lightly used by non-Annex I Parties.
Discussion on this paragraph was suspended. On text regarding the
workshop on innovative financing, THAILAND, supported by the G-77/CHINA,
and opposed by the US, EU, CANADA, SWITZERLAND and JAPAN, suggested
calling on the workshop to generate concrete proposals on funding
mechanisms under UNFCCC Article 4.5 (technology transfer). The US,
CANADA and SWITZERLAND said the proposed wording is restrictive.
Co-Chair Andrej Kranjc invited interested Parties to consult informally
on the matter.

LULUCF GPG: On definitions and methodological
issues relating to degradation of forests, devegetation and other
vegetation types, AUSTRALIA and others supported discussing the matter
within a broader dialogue on second commitments. TUVALU, with BRAZIL,
suggested an on-going discussion on the matter. On factoring out,
AUSTRALIA circulated text calling for a forward-looking dialogue that
takes a broad approach to LULUCF issues. The US, CANADA, JAPAN and NEW
ZEALAND supported this comprehensive approach. The EU, TUVALU and BRAZIL
preferred a focused approach and suggested holding a technical workshop
after COP-10, which would consider submissions by Parties and possibly
deal with devegetation and degradation. Co-Chair William Kojo
Agymang-Bonsu said the Co-Chairs would draft new text. Parties also
discussed draft conclusions on harvested wood products.

SBSTA IN-SESSION WORKSHOP

SBSTA
Chair Benrageb chaired the workshop.

SESSION 1: HOW CAN CLIMATE CHANGE RISK BE ASSESSED? Introducing the topic, Zbigniew Kundzewicz, Polish
Academy of Sciences, defined the concepts of vulnerability, risk, and
adaptation to climate change. He noted the increasing rate of
temperature rise and the resulting aggregate adverse impacts.

Roger
Jones, Atmospheric Research, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organization, Australia, spoke on the suitability of risk
assessment to inform adaptation needs, and called for focused assessment
of the adaptive potential of different activities.

Mahendra
Shah, International Institute for Applied System Analysis, presented on
climate change impacts on agriculture. He highlighted severe impacts in
Southern Africa, drawing attention to inequity of impacts among
countries.

Xuedu Lu,
Ministry of Science and Technology, China, presented on methodologies
for impact studies on climate change in China. He noted the number of
uncertainties resulting from models and methods, and called on SBSTA to
promote research and development of assessment tools in developing
countries.

Dagmar
Schröter, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, reported on
methods to assess European vulnerability to climate change and shared
preliminary results, noting that by 2050, overall consequences of
climate change in Europe will be adverse. She highlighted the importance
of science-policy dialogues.

In the
ensuing discussion, participants addressed, inter alia, issues of
spatial and temporal scale, uncertainties as an intrinsic part of
scientific progress, the lack of insurance mechanisms in SIDS, and risk
perceptions.

SESSION 2: HOW IS CLIMATE CHANGE RISK PERCEIVED? Donald Lemmen, Natural Resources Canada, said risk
perception and adaptive capacity vary. He noted that vulnerability to
current climate at the local and regional level, and the engagement of
decision makers are central to raising risk awareness.

Lourdes
Tibig, Philippine Atomspheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Administration, said floods, tropical cyclones, storm surges, monsoon
rains and droughts are primary risks to the Philippines. She outlined
the risks of climate change to agriculture, food and health sectors, and
coastal and water resources.

Antonio
Queface, Eduardo Mondlane University, Mozambique, described Mozambiqueï¿½s
vulnerability to tropical cyclones, floods and droughts, which are
aggravated by the countryï¿½s geographical location, limited ability to
forecast extreme events, reduced capability to adapt to natural
disasters, and high climate variability.

In the
discussion, TUVALU asked if a group of risk insurance experts could
advance the UNFCCC process. He also asked how models for risk assessment
could be rendered meaningful at the local level. Lemmen suggested
focusing on areas with highest vulnerability. NIUE asked how resilience
could be increased. Lemmen responded that lessons could be learnt from
the process of building resilience.

SESSION 3: ADAPTATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Saleemul Huq, International Institute for Environment and
Development, UK, said adaptation planning should be based on existing
knowledge, and stressed the importance of the development community in
this respect.

Shardul
Agrawala, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, said
adaptation is not always synergistic with development processes, but
noted that adaptive processes are already taking place in various
sectors. He stressed that new plans cannot be effectively implemented if
there is a poor track record for implementing past plans.

Mohamed
El-Raey, University of Alexandria, Egypt, spoke on adaptation measures
in Egypt. He highlighted the importance of anticipatory and specific
adaptation.

Ko Barret,
US Agency for International Development, described her organizationï¿½s
efforts to incorporate awareness of climate-related risks into projects.
She noted that the aim is to raise awareness among project managers that
incorporating adaptation concerns ensures project resilience in the long
run.

In the
discussion, SAUDI ARABIA urged addressing adaptation to response
measures. TUVALU said that lack of institutional capacity could affect
implementation of adaptation plans. UGANDA recalled that projects are
dependent on funding, and noted that many countries are currently unable
to carry out adaptation due to lack of funding. Huq said progress on
this matter should be evident shortly. CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK called for
new and additional funds for adaptation, and pointed to synergies on
adaptation among stakeholders, institutions and processes.

SESSION 4: SOLUTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES:
Anthony Nyong, University of Jos, Nigeria, presented on adapting to
droughts among rural households in semi-arid Nigeria. He said local
stakeholdersï¿½ views must be considered to develop successful adaptation
measures.

Nagmeldin
Elhassan, Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources, Sudan,
shared lessons on adaptation from Sudan. He stressed that action on
adaptive capacity building and enhancement of coping capacity are
necessary to reduce vulnerability.

Ahsan
Ahmed, Bangladesh Unnayan Parishad Centre for Water and Environment,
spoke on lessons learned on adaptation in Bangladesh. He emphasized that
projects should aim to: encourage communities to identify the causes of
their vulnerability; include field-level discussions on indigenous
solutions; target intervention at different levels of governance; and
aim for long-term solutions.

Carmenza
Robledo, Intercooperation, Switzerland, spoke on community management of
natural resources as an instrument to increase resilience. She described
a review of twelve Intercooperation community initiatives, concluding
that increasing adaptive capacity requires developing institutional
frameworks at national and sub-national levels and methodologies at the
local level.

Serge
Planton, Mï¿½tï¿½o France, spoke on adaptation to the 2003 heat wave in
France. He stressed that adapting to heat waves requires combining
different levels of decision making with national coordination.

In the
discussion, CUBA asked if forecasting could have prevented the heat-wave
impacts. Planton explained that there had been lack of communication
between institutions. The INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY FOR DISASTER REDUCTION
drew parallels between adaptation and disaster management.

CONCLUSIONS: Chair Benrageb said conclusions
of the workshop will be presented to SBSTA on Monday, 21 June.

IN THE CORRIDORS

High-level
attendance in the contact group on arrangements for intergovernmental
meetings and spirited discussion on the format of the high-level segment
led to speculation on the importance placed by governments on attracting
a star cast of heads of State and ministers to the tenth anniversary of
the UNFCCC. Meanwhile, several delegates commented on the success of the
in-session workshop on adaptation.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

CONTACT GROUPS: A contact group on non-Annex I
national communications will convene at 10:00 am in Haydn. The contact
group on capacity building will meet at 11:30 am in Liszt. The contact
group on implementation of decision 5/CP.7 will convene at 3:00 pm in
Haydn.

This issue of
the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin ï¿½ <enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by
Emily Boyd, Ph.D., Marï¿½a
Gutiï¿½rrez, Dagmar Lohan,
Ph.D., Lisa Schipper and
Anju Sharma. The Digital
Editors are Francis Dejon
and Leila Mead. The Team
Leader is Lisa Schipper <lisa@iisd.org>.
The Editor is Pamela S.
Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>
and the Director of IISD
Reporting Services is
Langston James "Kimo" Goree
VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the
Government of the United
States of America (through
the Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the Swiss
Agency for Environment,
Forests and Landscape (SAEFL),
the United Kingdom (through
the Department for
International Development -
DFID), the Danish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, the
Government of Germany
(through the German Federal
Ministry of Environment -
BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), and the
Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. General
Support for the Bulletin
during 2004 is provided
by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP),
the Government of Australia,
Austrian Federal Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry,
Environment and Water
Management, the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Sweden, the Ministry of
Environment and Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Norway,
Swan International, the
Japanese Ministry of
Environment (through the
Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies -
IGES) and the Japanese
Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry (through the
Global Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin in
French has been provided by
the International
Organization of the
Francophonie (IOF) and the
French Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. The opinions
expressed in the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect
the views of IISD or other
donors. Excerpts from the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin,
including requests to
provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-212-644-0217 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA.